Well I'll take a shot on who may be..
Akhenaten's father was amenhotep 3. nefertiti was the wife of akhenaten and his mother. In their time together she had 6 daughters and no sons. As Akhenaten became set on the beleith of only one god him and Nefertiti moved to Akhetaten in which Akhenaten made enemies for his beleifs. Once Nefertiti disapeared Akhenaten married Kiya who was sent from mitanni she gave birth to a boy in which she had died. he then married his eldest daughter meritaten who was actually married to smenkhkare, all the carvings of Kiya were re-carved to fit meritatens description.
Akhenaten had been blessed with a boy finally in which he had named him Tutenkhaten (living image of the Aten). When Akhenaten died, (some say he was murdered by priests of the old ways)Smenkhkare took over for a short period of time, when he died they had no choice but to make tutenkhaten pharoh, the nine year old boy was wed to his step sister Akhesenaaten(daughter of nefertiti) and shiped to memphis in which the priests taught him the old religions. 2 years after he was crowned their names were changed to tutankhamun and ankhesenamun. Tutankhamuns tomb did not have Kiya on the tomb because she had died at birth so he had no reason to put her on for he did not know her. After Tutankhamuns death Ankhesenamun did not want to marry a man from her kingdom so she wrote to King Suppiluliunas, when he finally sent his son, he was murdered on the way. So she was married to Ay possibly by force shortly afterwards disapeared.

I believe that king Tut was the son of Amenhotep III. People scoff at this idea, but there is a reason for the inscriptions existence. Putting Tut as the son of Amenhotep III helps solve the Exodus mystery, since Amenhotep III drowned in the Gulf of Aqaba, and his first born king Tutankhuman died from the 10th plague of Egypt.

I know this is a shocking, outraging view to you people, but this is what I believe. This is after a number of years in research (my brother has researched this topic even more than I have, and he is heavily into egyptology)

I also believe that the name Thutmosis is only a name for co-regency, as co-regent Pharaoh along Amenhotep in Memphis, while Amenhotep ruled in Thebes. It would be strange to think that the names interchange back and forth, while Thuthmosis (being that of Thot, a lower god) and Amenhotep (being that of Amen, a higher god).

I'm really making this brief, since all of this has been discussed at evcforum.net. I've written massive articles on this, and I know it to make a lot more sense than what traditional Egyptologists have been suggesting.

Ahmose was the starting Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, his successor was Thutmosis I, his co-ruler. when Ahmose dies, Thutmosis one ascends the throne and assumes his new title "Amenhotep I". Amenhotep I's co-ruler is Hatsetsup, but since there no male heir to the throne, Hatshsetsup and Thutmosis II (Moses) become co-ruler together. This solves the lack of a male heir. However, Thutmosis II (Moses) kills the Egyptian and flees to Midian. So now there is no male heir. Thutmosis III takes Thutmosis II's (Moses) place as co-ruler along with Hatshetsup. During the 40 years in Midian, Thutmosis III now becomes Pharaoh and assumes his new title as Amenhotep II. Thutmosis IV is co-regent with Amenhotep II and becomes Pharaoh as Amenhotep III when Amenhotep II dies (during the 40 years Moses is gone).

Moses returns, and Amenhotep III won't let Israel go. Finally, he lets Israel go to worship in the wildnerness for 3 days and nights so Israel departs. Pharaoh is enraged when they do not return soon after the 3 days and nights, so he persues Moses and the Israelites cross the Sinai Peninsula through the Wadi Watir (dried up riverbed) to Nuweiba beach at the Gulf of Aqaba. This took approx. 7 days, and since Israel had the pillar of fire by day, they were able to travel at much swifter speed and were able to make it within this time. Pharaoh and his counselors declare that "the mountains have entangled them, and the wilderness have shut them in". At the Gulf of Suez, there are no such mountains. Only the Gulf of Aqaba fits this geography, which is why the underwater landbridge (as if designed according to American dissability standards) has Egyptian chariot remains (chariot bodies, wheels, odd coral formations, human bones, horse bones, and cattle bones) littered all across the underwater landbridge of sand ALL THE WAY from the WEST side of the Gulf of Aqaba to the East. Pharaoh is sure of victory, but the waters are divided (congealed according to scripture = walls of ice on either side from sharp stream of wind that froze water on both sides) and since Pharaoh and every Egyptian had personal reasons to persue Moses and the Israelites (because everyone of them had a first born relatives, and bore anger without reason), Pharaoh leads the charge, (Israel has made it to the Saudi coast because the Pillar of fire was dark holding the Egyptians back), and the waters (walls of ice) come crashing down on Amenhotep III and his entire army. This is why you do not find Amenhotep III's mummy, and his sarcophagus is empty along queen Tiy's (and her mummy is there). Apparently however, an original, more royal tomb had been prepared for Amenhotep III. Now there was no Amenhotep III to be buried, so who would go in Amenhotep III's tomb? Egypt did not have the body of Amenhotep III, but they did have the body of his son, Tuthenkhuman, so it would only seem logical to burry the Prince Tut in his fathers tomb with all the lavish decorations that had been prepared for the Pharaoh. This helped Egypt "fill in the slot for the missing Pharaoh", although Tut was never a Pharaoh (only a prince).

If you're intrested, I can provide much more detail on this subject. It is a massive topic in which I amazingly condensed in a few paragraphs.

Hail Lysimachus Are you just His general or are you currently the King of Thrace? Either way, welcome to KingTutOne! I am sorry we are not evcforum.net therefore haven't read your previous posts on this interesting subject. You certainly did get a lot of information into one post about Tut's dad's.

First off, i don't find it shocking that someone believes Amenhopet III was Tut's dad. While personally i don't believe the pudding is set yet, on the subject. i prefer Amenhotep III and a wife as Tut's parents to Akhenaten and Kiya as his parents. Although there is no definative proof that Akhenaten and Nefertiti didn't have sons.

Historically, in ancient Egyptian culture, my preference is overweighted with support. Queens Tiy, Nefertari, and Istnofret none of royal birth (just like Nefertiti) all furnished their royal husband with heirs and got the titles and position that Nefertiti got from her husband. See for years, i thought Amenhopet III was his dad. Until research led me to see that ...umm something was fishy in denying the possibility of Nefertiti. Just because she is shown with her daughters. Are you aware that Tiy was never shown with her sons until Akhenaten was Pharaoh? So it isn't shocking to me.

Please tell me how you can chop up the 18th dynasty into a shadow of itself with your shocking theory about coregencies? For this i would like your sources.

Let me see here instead of arguing what most folks, use and know. Let me use the position of the Divine Wife of Amun of which Ahmose-Nefertari was the first. Umm she outlives her son Amenhotep I, dies during the reign of Thutmose I who you claim is actually the now ruling Amenhotep I. Do i have that right? Poor Ahmose-Nefertari burying her son first then watching crowned again! Umm, now on to her successor the God's Wife of Amun Meritamun. Not only was she Ahmose-Nefertari's daughter, she was the wife and Queen of Amenhotep I who you claim is actually Thutmose I in the role of senior King in a coregencey. Okay, Thutmose I was never married to Meritamun, his wife and Queen was most likely the sister of Meritamun. It is his daughter Hatshepsut that becomes the next well known God's Wife and she is so very near to the beginning of the reign of her half-brother Thutmose II, who i am sorry to say couldn't be Moses. The Bible does not claim as you do that Moses married or even reigned in Egypt, it states he was rasied by the daughter of Pharaoh. I could easly go on ... just in this vein for sometime. Please, don't forget i would like your sources for this most shocking reorganization of Egyptian chronology.

However, since this is a most shocking reorganization of Egyptian chronology i would like to know ... is this the only dynasty you feel the need to slice and dice to fit with your thinking? Dr. Rohl wants to do several dynasties. Roger Henry wants to do the entire Egyptian dynasties. While another wants to do it as well, but he has another way of doing it. Meanwhile, if your reorganization of Egyptian chronology is correct. How do you explain Manetho's and the other ancient Egyptian chronologies being so far off?

On what basis do you claim Moses in the 18th Dynasty? Surely you are not using the discredited Shishak is Shoshenq I theory plus the 2nd Kings 6:1 stuff. I bet you are Most folks do not realize that Shoshenq I never made it to Jerusalem... and 2nd Kings doesn't agree with any part of Judges! Why do i say i bet you are? Because the only way you can get Moses into the 18th dynasty is to use those numbers, why even Manetho didn't go that route. He gave the Jews and Hyksos 450 years in Egypt starting with the 15th Dynasty. He sure was one old sly Egyptian priest kowtowing to another one of His generals and successor pretender Kings

You say Lysimachus, "It would be strange to think that the names interchange back and forth, while Thuthmosis (being that of Thot, a lower god) and Amenhotep (being that of Amen, a higher god)." Are you aware who Thoth was married to? To none other than Maat! The daughter of Re who represented cosmic harmony, divine order, and was primarly worshipped by Pharaoh!

A lower god? It was Thoth, Lord of Scribes and Truth that was sent to tame another daughter of Re. Sekhmet when she had overly, over killed the Egyptians her father had set her on... Re himself was afraid to approach this mighty and powerful daughter of his, but not Thoth. Excuse me Lysimachus, i know those taught by Aristotle, except Him. Had terrible beliefs about Asians... some including the Egyptians, but i do believe you owe the Lord Thoth an apology. Lower god indeed! No, i do not think it strange that a dynasty that was attempting to heal the wounds of civil war, conquest by foreigners, and suffering the lack of Maat for years, would pick the name Thoth for their sons. In fact i do believe it was a wise chose of names. Amun-Re and son-in-law what a team!

Lastly for tonight i want to inquire if you have taken into account the 5 names Pharaoh had? What happens if your Amenhotep I has 10 different Pharaonic names? How do you explain that?

Thank you Lysimachus, you have made me smile and shake my head. I hope i do hear back from you with your sources. Beware Lysimachus, i have really good sources. Nor am i afraid to use them... He never knew the meaning of fear either. LOL i have to go now... please besure to look over our many topics about Exodus, Chronology in Pharaohs and in Ancient Egypt.

Hail again, Lysimachus! Before i go i really do need to ask another question... for your consideration. How do you explain the bodies of the 18th dynasty Pharaohs found in the Deir el Bahri? Please remember sources along with explaination. Thank you i hope you have a nice night.

Make sure to watch BOTH video clips, starting with the Promo, and then the "Scenese from the Red Sea Crossing".

The wheels found on the underwater landbridge, under the Gulf of Aqaba across Nuweiba beach are wheels from the 18th Dynasty. Scientists from around the world are now beginning to realize that there is actually more validity and authenticity to Ron's theories and discoveries than had originally been supposed.

Dr. Lennart Moller, scientist and professor from Karolinska Insitute in Stolkholm Sweden decided that he would forensically investigate all the theories using text and data analysis at a very detailed level. Other Egyptologists and scientists around the world are now supporting him, and this series will make a twist to traditional standpoints concerning the Exodus event.

The whole proposed new Dynasty is based around the archeological remains at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba, and evidence suggests that the true Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia, on the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba, since Midian is in Saudi Arabia, and we know that Moses visited Sinai (Horeb) in Midian. Also, Galations 4:25 says it plainly: " For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Jebel El Lawz is the mountain we've been looking for, and it matches every description of Mt. Sinai. The Saudis have even fenced in the mountain because they know themselves that the mountain is of archeological importance. There are 12 pillars at the foot of the mountain representing 12 tribes of Israel. Also, there are alters with bull inscriptions (bull inscriptions of the same kind of bulling creatures in Egypt, representing the Golden Calf. Also, as the Bible states that the Lord's fire descended upon the Mountain top, the top of Jebel El Lawz is all charred black. Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams went to the top of the mountain and collected rock samples which were taken to labratories. The results were that there is no volcanic activity in the area, and there is no natural explanation for the rocks to be charred black, as if the mountain had been ablaze. There is also a host of other information indicating that Jebel El Lawz (which means "Mountain of the Law" in Saudi Arabian) is unquestionably the Mountain of which Moses ascended.

For more information regarding the Chariot wheels and Mt. Sinai, here are some more links:

Let me make it clear, there are thousands of theories that revolve around these stories. However, non match scripture as clear as this. I'm giving in your hands right now the true answers that archeologists and scientists from around the world have been so openly willing to dissmiss. My friend Andrew Jones was/is part of the W.A.R team (Wyatt Archeological Research foundation), and he was actually there himself at the diving site at the Gulf of Aqaba where the chariot remains have been witnessed.

Also take note that Jebel Musa (the traditional Mt. Sinai) is located in the wrong place. It's located in the Sinai Peninsula (the name that was given through tradition). The Sinai Peninsula is the wilderness in which the Israelites crossed before they met up with The Gulf of Aqaba. They never crossed the Gulf of Suez. For many years, archeologists have been looking for some remain that will indicate a crossing, but have found absolutely nothing. This has lead many researchers around the world that the Exodus was Myth. It wasn't myth. They've been just looking in the wrong places. Succoth (the town in which the Israelites gathered to leave Egypt) is in the northern hemisphere of Egypt, near the tip of Suez. It would have been absolutely ludicrous for Moses and the Israelites to turn south into Egyptian territory (south from Goshen) and then cross the Gulf of Suez. On top of that, the Egyptian army would have been insane to not just go around the lakes at the tip of Suez, and in reality, went around these lakes all the time to fight the cannanites! Also, the sea bed of Suez is so marshy and mucky, that it would be impossible to cross even if the waters had divided.

The Gulf of Aqaba is our answer to all our problems. The Gulf of Aqaba is PART of the Red Sea, and king Solomon errected pillars on each end of the crossing to commemorate the crossing. On one of the pillars, it reads in Hebrew words for Egypt, death, water, pharaoh, Yahweh, and Solomon.

Hail again, Lysimachus,
I looked over your sources Mr. Ron Wyatt is another using the discredited dates from Shoshenq I and 2nd Kings 6:1. As i have stated earlier neither of these dates stand up againt a real look. See below.

Karol Mysliwiec in The Twilight of Ancient Egypt, First Millennium BCE, Cornell University Press, english translation David Lorton, 2000. pg 45 makes it almost abundantly clear that Shoshenq I wasn't Shishak.
Taken from Pharaohs and Kings A Biblical Quest by David Rohl, Crown Publishing 1995.
Champollion was wrong in his reading of the Shoshenq I's campainge. It wasn't Jerusalem but the place of the Kings Hand. pg. 122
Shoshenq does not easily translate into Shishak. pg 128.
Ramesses II does assult, and take the Canaanite town Shalem, the historical name of Jerusalem. pg 149.
Ramesses II name can be translated into Shishak. pgs 157-162.

The Merenptah Victory Stele is another source on the dating of Israel, and Exodus. However, due to the persistant belief that Exodus happens in either the 18th or 19th Dynasty. The concentration of the scholars is on the wording of the name Israel instead of on the entire stanza. The object of interest for the majority of scholars is the notation of Israel in this stanza as a non-city state people. i say big deal show me one case when Israel was ever considered a city state? What is consistantly missed by these same scholars is the first line of the stanza. Here we are told that Israel has a Prince and he is prostrated like the others begging peace.
This line states that the "Princes are prostrate saying Shalom."
When did Israel have a Prince? At and after the sacking of Jerusalem by Shishak. Israel had became a nation state not a city state unlike all the other place names. That were indicated on the Stele.
To make Ramesses II Shishak, not the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus, and Merenptah's mention of Israel as a nation state with a Prince. Pushes those events further back in time than most scholars are willing to do.

So i dismiss Mr. Wyatt as no more pertinent to the study of where and when than i do anyone else using such information as a starting point. Besides even if this is the correct time for the Exodus it does not the negate the rest of the research that can't find Abraham, Joseph, King David, or King Solomon.

You wonder why Amenhotep III was not found next to his wife Queen Tiy? To begin wtih the identification of Queen Tiy is not definative, it might not be her. I for one do not believe it is her thanks to two most enlightening article by Dr. Susan James found in KMT A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, Volume 12, Number 3, Summer 2001, see article "Who is the Mummy of Elder Lady" pgs 42-50. Then followed by her in KMT A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2003, see article "The Dueling Nefertitis",pgs 22-29. So first you must prove the mummy is Tiy if you can't your question is moot. As for the remains of Amenhotep III they were found in the same tomb as the possible Queen Tiy/Nefertiti only in the main burial chamber. The mummy of Amenhotep III was discovered in the tomb of Amenhotep II laying in the coffin box of Rameses III and covered by the lid of a replacement coffin originally meant for Seti II (from the website http://www.secker.fsbusiness.co.uk/amenhotep3.htm)

As for you slicing and dicing of the 18th Dynasty how do you explain the recorded record of the king's mothers for the Amenhoteps and Thutmoses? How do you make these women disappear?
Source Women in Ancient Egypt by Gay Robings
Mothers of the Accepted Thutmose's and Amenhotep's Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty
Queen Ahhotep mother of Ahmose pg 42
Queen Ahmose-Nefertari mother of Amenhotep I pg 43
King's Mother Seniseneb mother of Thutmose I pg 45
King's Mother Mutnefert mother of Thutmose II (source http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis2.htm)
King's Mother Aset mother of Thutmose III pg 150
King's Mother Meritra mother of Amenhotep pg 150
King's Mother Tiaa mother of Thutmose IV pg 150
King's Mother Mutemwia mother of Amenhotep III
Queen Tiy mother of Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten pg 52

The Deir el-Bahri cache also casts doubts on your slicing and dicement of the 18th Dynasty because it included the remains of Seqenenre-Taa, who had fought the Hyksos and bore a great head wound as apparent evidence, Ahmose I, the founder of the New Kingdom, Amenhotep I, the first three Tutmosids, Seti I, Ramesses II, III and IX, and the coffin of Ramesses I.

I see another problem with your theory on the Thutmose being the name of the coregencey not that of the Pharaoh himself. How does your theory excuse the remains of 3 seperate Thutmose Kings? Not to mention that in your theory Amenhotep I was originally the junior king under the name of Thutmose I, to Ahmose but in this one cache we have 3 bodies that correspond with Ahmose, his son Amenhotep I, and Thutmose I. How do you explain this?

Now on to you excitment of finding 18th Dynasty chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqaba, why is this a surprise? It isn't to me or many others with interest in the 18th Dynasty. Why? Because the 18th Dynasty was an imperialistic state meaning it lead many expeditions. From the time of Thutmose I to the reign of Thutmose IV there were atleast 10 Pharaoh lead campaigns into Palestine and Syria all starting in Egypt. This does not include those campaigns not lead by Pharaoh. I for one do not believe that all equipment made it to Palestine/Syria safety this discovery only underscores that belief of mine. Egypt has had ports off there since the Predynastic period. As for human remains with chariots being found across the whole way, Lysimachus there is such a thing called wave action. As the Gulf is a small area to begin with artifacts from humans only have so much area to disperse.
As for Saudi Arabia being the area of the real Mt. Sini okay not a problem to me.

I am sorry Lysimachus until you explain the King's mothers, offer an explaination that puts the Exodus into the 18th Dynasty without using Shoshenq I or 2nd Kings 6:1 you theory and heros remains yours and your friends alone. I still believe you owe Lord Thoth an apology

Heh, now now let's remember. Let us not let this become a test of salvation.

Bear in mind that I stumbled upon this site accidently and I noticed the topics. I have had little time to go into-depths, so therefore I was very vague. As for this "sheshonq" or whatever, I have never heard of that name before.

I suggest you purchase the book "The Exodus Case" by Dr. Lennart Moller. You must forget Wyatt, since he has passed away, and now new scientists are coming on the scenese coming to the same conclusions that Wyatt did. So if you want to discredit Wyatt, you're going to have to throw the whole bunch out that are out there now.

If I have time, I will provide more detail. But bear in mind that Rameses does not line up with 1446 BC, the well calculated date of the Exodus. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Exodus occurred only during the 18th dynasty, but I'll save that for another time.

I'm sure you will find Moller's 314 page book, with beautiful illustrations and pictures of inscriptures very rewarding. If I were you, I would invest for this book, for he does a thorough job at answering a host of questions that you have raised.

Oh, and before I forget. Don't forget to stay tuned to Moller's new 3hr/3part documentary series that will be released on national Television near the end of this year! Keep an eye open for it, and eventually the website www.exoduscase.com will tell you which station it will be aired on (Discovery, TLC, or one of those...).

Part 1. Joseph, The Interpreter of Dreams

Part 2. Moses, Prince of Egypt, Prophet of God

Part 3. The Red Sea Crossing

This documentary is going to be a blockbuster. Done extremely professional. Once it is aired worldwide, I guarantee you, a lot of views are going to start reexamining not only the event of the Exodus, but as to what dynasty was the true dynasty of the Exodus as well

I'm really excited about this series! For this is the first time this theory is going to be released to the public!

Heh, now now let's remember. Let us not let this become a test of salvation.

Bear in mind that I stumbled upon this site accidently and I noticed the topics. I have had little time to go into-depths, so therefore I was very vague. As for this "sheshonq" or whatever, I have never heard of that name before.

I suggest you purchase the book "The Exodus Case" by Dr. Lennart Moller. You must forget Wyatt, since he has passed away, and now new scientists are coming on the scenese coming to the same conclusions that Wyatt did. So if you want to discredit Wyatt, you're going to have to throw the whole bunch out that are out there now.

LOL Lysimachus, i am prepared to face off against Dr. Redford, Dr. Grimal, and Dr. Kitchen on Shoshenq I as Shishak. The late Mr. Wyatt and his successors are nothing compared to the first 3 names i am looking forward to facing off with. And i am looking forward to it... there is more than just the proof provided by Dr. Rohl and Dr. Mysliwiec, believe me.

Lysimachus wrote:

if you carefully count and calculate 480 years back from the ordaining of King Solomon in 970 BC, minus 4 years of his reign, we arrive at 1446 BC

Okay, you know nothing about Shoshenq I reign dates 945-924 BCE... How do you get Solomon in the year 970 BCE? I will tell you because it is accepted that Shoshenq I invaded and sacked Jerusalem as Shishak, during the reign of Reoboam, Solomon's son. Only he didn't as Dr. Rohl and Dr. Mysliwiec prove.
Then there is the fact that you obtain 480 years- (plus or minus all the years you want) from 2nd Kings 6:1. It still doesn't change the fact that 2nd Kings 6:1 disagrees with Judges 2:18 and the rest of Judges. Therefore again, any dating of Exodus using as its source the 10th century and 2nd Kings 6:1 is wrong.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum